InfoWars/PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones’s websites) released a youtube video about something called neomasculinity:

I noticed several things about the video. While it used game language and other language from this part of the internet, it’s clear that whoever wrote the script for that video didn’t really understand what we talk about. MGTOW gets attacked (which has led to responses from MGTOW like Barbarossa). Overall, this is another attempt at entryism by tradcons with some game terms used as an unsuccessful attempt to hide that it is an attempt at entryism.

This is nothing new. It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account). This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the Manhood Academy/Manhood 101 morons, and others have tried and failed to do. This time it has a dash of, “you have to get married because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” (which is why believing in the depopulation agenda is misandry) and “They (whoever they is) are putting chemicals in the water to turn you gay”, but it’s really no different. It’s an extreme form of the tradcon cry, “You have to get married to save civilization”.

I am certain that Alex Jones’s attempt at entryism will fail. We have dealt with entryist tradcons before. Tradcons have nothing to offer game, MGTOW (or the M(H)RM) so neither does Alex Jones. No one is impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization”, so no one will be impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” We may see a few guys planning on pulling a Mark Minter use neomasculinity as a cover, but that will be it. We don’t need Mark Minters so good riddance to them.

The more tradcons attack MGTOW, the more popular it becomes. Let Alex Jones attack MGTOW and try his attempt at entryism. He will fail, and MGTOW will be more popular afterwards.

Plus, Stanford’s not a morning person. But if that’s the case, why take a job that requires a 3 a.m. alarm and a horrendous commute?

“So I could have my family live near family members and be near the church I wanted to go to,” says Stanford, who lives in Harrington, Del.

Stanford’s current job doesn’t allow him to telecommute, and he says computer programming jobs closer to home pay tens of thousands of dollars less. Delaware’s lower taxes and cost of living also make it easier for Stacey to be a stay-at-home mom.

If the family lived closer to his job, Stanford says living expenses would force Stacey to work and the children would have to spend time in other people’s care.

“I’d rather my wife be able to be the one taking care of the kids, raising them and giving them their family values,” he says.

A lot of this problem could be solved by living just a bit farther away from family members and their church. (It is likely that it is the wife who wants to live close to their family members and church.) Or it could be solved with his wife getting a part time job. Their youngest child is 9 so the desire to have a stay at home mom doesn’t completely hold water since the kids are in school. Notice how all of these solutions involve the wife having to do something or give up something.

Their kids hate how they never see their father:

“My dad’s commute stinks because I don’t get to see him often,” says 9-year-old Christopher, the youngest.

I guess kids not seeing their father is traditional and a “family value”. The wife here is denying their children time with their father just do she doesn’t have to work a few hours a week at a part time job. I suspect that if a follow up story was done on this guy in a few years that his wife will have divorced him because he’s “never around” and “never took care of the kids”.

While tradcons fret about “gay marriage”, heterosexual marriage is being destroyed by a group other than homosexuals. It is being destroyed by heterosexual women. It’s heterosexual women who are initiating nearly all divorces citing drivel like “irreconcilable differences”. It’s heterosexual women who are using anti-family courts to force fathers out of the family and out of their children’s lives. (And let’s not forget how blatantly unconstitutional anti-family courts are.)

Heterosexual women are the real threat to heterosexual marriage. Any man who is part of the “marriage strike” isn’t refusing to get married because a few gays get some benefits or can get married in a few states. It doesn’t even enter into any man’s thinking. Men in the “marriage strike” are avoiding having their children taken away from them, paternity fraud, loss of their assets, loss of their jobs, & loss of their freedom. This makes it clear that gays aren’t destroying marriage. It’s heterosexual women, so when it comes to DOMA being declared unconstitutional or gay marriage in general, “who cares?”

Too few people are questioning the very obvious problem that the institution that conducts the marriage is not the same institution that conducts divorces. The two have no relation. How can so few people see the obvious problems with this.

So either the church should handle divorces, or the courts should handle the marital contract (which would itself make the lopsided arrangement far more clear to the man).

Also, if the church is not at least lobbying hard for this, that means they are either not serious about keeping the institution of marriage alive, or are too stupid to even grasp the dynamics.

That is why the focus on gay marriage is more irritating than anything else. They actually believe *that* is a threat to marriage. Rather, it is like firing a bullet into a corpse that has already been dead for a year.

This is very true. When people get married, they go to a church (or some other place that isn’t a courthouse) and only give minimal thought to the legal side of it. When they get divorced, they go to the courthouse and maybe later think about the religious side like getting an annulment (if that’s even relevant). The primary institution of marriage to most people is not the law/courts/government, but for divorce it is. This is why to solve the problem of rampant female initiated divorce, the solution must deal with the law/courts/government. Tradcons and socons refuse to get this so they try to fight this as a culture war issue which leaves them fighting a useless war against gay marriage. They ignore the fact that the biggest threat to marriage is female initiated divorce a lot of which is done by churchgoing Christian women.

That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.

I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.

Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.

At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.

On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”

The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.

The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.

Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage. They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”. For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0. Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0). How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism? The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married. This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage. There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country

Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)

Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2. They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county. It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens. This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be? Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage. They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations. In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies. Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

There are other Christmas traditions as well. I don’t experience this every year, but there is the tradition of one or more people my parents’ age (not my parents, that’s a different story) asking if I have a girlfriend. I love how telling them I don’t have a girlfriend. It makes them squirm because they can’t deal with the idea of a MGHOW instead of following the standard life script ™. (Plus, I’m not going to tell them about how I had two girlfriends at the same time.) Women my parents age are especially mortified at the idea that I’m single because it means no woman is able to sink her claws into my money (and they have no idea what the real extent of my assets are). Why shouldn’t they be pissed at the fact that I’m living in paradise?

Since I travel to my original undisclosed location for Christmas, there is also the tradition of seeing (or hearing about) friends and acquaintances I wouldn’t see/hear about otherwise. Sometimes that leads to finding out about a story like which I’m going to tell you about.

I heard about someone I really don’t know that well. This guy is around 10 years younger than me give or take so we were never friends or anything like that. He’s in college now, and I heard about his girlfriend that his parents don’t like. And with good reason because she’s a bitch. I also figured out that’s this girl is a big time feminist. She is majoring in womens’ studies. I’m not kidding. She plans on going into some type of social work. In other words, she will be in some sort of feminist bureaucracy and be a feminist problem generator. Of course, she doesn’t know how to cook either. This guy is (or at least was) really into her. He did everything for her from cooking to cleaning to whatever. She never reciprocated obviously. Her behavior was so odious that his (somewhat leftist) parents noticed. Of course, they didn’t make the connection between her behavior and feminism.

This guy was actually thinking he was going to have a future with this girl. Fortunately, it sounds like his dad convinced him out of it. However, that was only due to his dad making him realize just how much things would suck with this girl since she wouldn’t be able to contribute to a marriage/household financially (which is a big deal since a job in his current major doesn’t pay a large salary) and wouldn’t be willing to contribute non-financially. (Remember that knowing basic life skills like cooking are oppressive to women.) That probably solved the problem of the current girlfriend, but it doesn’t solve anything longer term since he probably will end up with another woman that’s just as bad. Of course, his parents aren’t telling him the truth about women which isn’t surprising since I’m certain that they don’t know the truth about women either. (I really don’t know the guy well enough to get involved in any way.)

As we fight feminists and other female supremacists, it’s important to remember those who have taken them on and their fellow travelers before us successfully, even if it was only over a small specific issue. T.J. Rodgers is one such man.

Who is T.J. Rodgers? Rodgers is the founder, CEO, President, and a director of Cypress Semiconductor, a company in Silicon Valley. He is a graduate of Dartmouth and Stanford. Rodgers is also known in the political arena for being libertarian minded, to the point of being an advocate for killing all subsidies for business including those that would benefit him, and an ardent defender of capitalism. You can find a biography here, and his essays on various issues here. Rodgers has taken on people such as Jesse Jackson.

One of the things that T.J. Rodgers is known for is what has been called the “nun episode”. Back in 1996, Rodgers received a letter from Sister Doris Gormley, the Director of Corporate Social Responsibility of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, an order of approximatively 1000 nuns. The order had investments of stock in various companies which included Cypress Semiconductor. As a shareholder Sister Gormley sent all of these companies a form letter demanding that women and minorities be included in the respective companies’ boards of directors. Rodgers responded by writing a letter to Sister Gormley pointing out why her demands (according to Rodgers) were immoral. Pointing out that the board of directors of Cypress Semiconductor was a not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function, Rodgers explained that the requirements for being on the board of directors involved experience as a CEO of an important technology company, direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and management experience, and/or direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the semiconductor industry. He also said that this usually meant a man with graduate level education who is around 50 years old. As of 1996 this meant that their current set of candidates for the board of directors were in graduate school in the 70’s, during which engineering was an almost exclusively male discipline. Because of this, Rodgers said, “a ‘woman’s view’ on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO.”

Rodgers continued the letter with a philosophical and pragmatic defense of his position explaining why he believed the Sister Gormley’s position was immoral. Rodgers also pointed out that there is no requirement in Christianity for “diverse” corporate boards, and that Sister Gormley’s position was based on political correctness rather than the Christian religion (be sure to read Rodgers’ excellent letter).

Rodgers sent a copy of his letter to all Cypress Semiconductor shareholders. This led to a full page article in the Wall Street Journal, and a debate between Rodgers and Sister Gormley at Stanford. The response to Rodgers was overwhelmingly positive. Ninety percent of the letters he received supported him. The only unified group that disapproved were other nuns.

When the Cypress Semiconductor stock that the order owned was sold, the nun episode quietly blew over, and T. J. Rodgers’ successful career continued unharmed.

(Disclaimer: I can’t speak to what God’s plan is for your particular life. However, this is true for most men.)

That’s right. God doesn’t want you to get married. You have probably heard a lot of people say such as the Marriage Mandate Movement (such as Debbie Maken and Boundless Brainless) say that God demands you get married. This is false. Anakin on his blog as well as many othershave shown why the marriage mandate concept is false. Anakin rightfully points out that God leaves the choice to get married up to us. After all, this isn’t Islam where everything is halal or haram.

When we’re married, God wants us to have a marriage defined by His principles, not necessarily the Church’s principles and definitely not current society’s principles or worse yet feminist principles. What do God’s principles for marriage include? (I’m only going to speak to those principles which are relevant to this blog entry.) Let’s take a much quoted passage of the Bible, Ephesians 5:22-25:

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

Notice the command for women to submit to their husbands. This is one of the things that God wants in a marriage, and He has to tell women to do this. While, this passage says that men lead their wives, notice how God doesn’t put in a command to men to lead (instead its a command for men to love their wives). This is very important. Why does God tell give a command to women to submit but not to men to lead? Because, it’s unnecessary and because women must first choose to submit before any male leadership can take place. Men don’t have the option of firing their wives if they don’t submit so men can not be held responsible when women refuse to submit. This is what God says. Notice how its in direct opposition to both feminists AND socons (social conservatives) who claim that men are the source of all problems. Church leaders (and this includes the leaders of most Churches across all Christian denominations because this attitude is so pervasive) who claim that divorce, adultery, and other marital problems are all the fault of men “failing to show enough leadership” are directly contradicting God. Nearly all Church leaders have failed in their responibility to teach Biblical principles because of this.

Let’s take a look at another passage of the Bible, 2 Corinthians 14:

Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?

This passage is usually taken to have to do with Christians getting married to non-Christians (or non-Christians with different enough morals). (Debating on how far this passage goes with non-Christians is beyond the scope of this blog entry.) However, this passage also can apply within the Church. Just because someone is sitting in a pew doesn’t mean they are really a believer or that you can’t be unequally yoked with them. Since all but a handful of Christian women don’t believe in submitting to their husbands or future husbands, a marriage to most any Christian woman means that a Christian man will be unequally yoked to her.

This is why God doesn’t want Christian men to get married. There simply aren’t enough women out there who will be part of a marriage based on Biblical principles. You could end up being one of the lucky ones who does meet a woman who is willing to be part of a marriage based on Biblical principles. (That’s why I added my disclaimer at the beginning.) However, this is highly unlikely so you are most likely in the horde of men who God doesn’t want getting married.